What led to delay in creating Lok Pal, SC asks Modi Government

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday demanded to know from the Modi government what was preventing it from creating the Lok Pal, the anti-corruption ombudsman, even after two years of the decision getting the President’s assent. The apex court bench has given the Attorney General ( AG) time till December 14, 2016, to revert to the court on this.

The only hurdle in the creation of Lok Pal is a controversial clause which insists that the Leader of Opposition (LoP) be made part of the selection committee. But the government has claimed that there is no LoP as of now and it has staunchly refused to bring in an ordinance to make way for it.

“An ordinance is not possible,” Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told a bench, led by Chief Justice of India ( CJI) TS Thakur, on Wednesday.

He, however, said that he had conveyed the court’s strong sentiments on this to the highest levels in the government.

But the CJI, who had demanded to know at the last hearing why the government was not bringing in an ordinance clarifying the issue on who would be part of the selection team if there was no LoP, wasn’t happy with the stand.

“Are you going to take the rest of the term to bring in the Lok Pal,” the CJI had wanted to know at the last hearing. “What are the other impediments in making the Lok Pal functional?” the CJI had asked the AG.

While the AG sought more time, he explained to the court that a select committee of Parliament had recommended changes in the law to give the Lok Pal more teeth.

“The home minister will hold a meeting soon to hasten the process,” he assured the court. “The issue is before Parliament,” he said.

NGO Common Cause, through senior advocate Shanti Bhushan and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan, has sought the court’s intervention to have the LoP provision to be read in such a way as to include the leader of the largest Opposition party in the selection committee.

But the government has been resisting this. However, the CJI prima facie has agreed with this view, and openly wondered why the government was not being gracious enough to do this.